In a data and/or communication network, clients (e.g., devices) may write object values or read current object values in a database to adjust the state of one or more devices (e.g., dim light, set temperature, etc.). For concurrent processes (e.g., writes and reads), a single centralized database at an access node typically ensures that any client (e.g., device) does not read a value from an object that is older (e.g., stale values) than a value that one or more clients (e.g., devices) have already successfully written to the centralized database. Even though this strict consistency of the centralized database ensures data integrity, the centralized access node has scalability restraints. A client's (e.g., device's) physical proximity from the access node, for example, becomes an issue where clients (e.g., devices) that are physically located farther away from central access node have a higher latency than clients (e.g., devices) physically located closer to the central access node. In addition, the clients (e.g., devices) of a centralized database infrastructure rely on the access node to function properly. That is, not only does each client (e.g., device) lose connectivity if/when an access node goes offline (e.g., fail), but some of the clients (e.g., devices) lose proper functionality, as the clients (e.g., devices) cannot read an object or write an object from the centralized database until the access node is brought back online.
One approach to maintain the connectivity and/or functionality of clients (e.g., devices) is to decentralize the database and replicate the database across additional access nodes. This approach has the potential to compensate for offline access nodes and for some clients (e.g., devices) the approach may decrease latency between clients (e.g., devices).
Efforts, however, to ensure that the data is eventually consistent across each access node such that the object values will eventually contain the same value between replicas absent any new writes to an object value to any node, fall short. This shortfall is particularly poignant for access nodes that support internet-of-thing (IoT) devices, which may have multiple communication protocols such as Bluetooth, Zigbee, Z-wave, 6lowPAN, Thread, WiFi, cellular, Nearfield Communication (NFC), Sigfox, Neul, LoRaWAN, to name a few.